What is meant by ‘material’ services in the context of Industrial dispute?

What can fairly be regarded as a sufficiently elastic or flexible working principle for this purpose has been discussed in a number of decisions of this Court of which we may refer only to three, namely, the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha case (AIR 1960 SC 610), The Madras Gymkhana case (AIR 1968 SC 554) and the Safdarjung Hospital case (AIR 1970 SC 1407). Though the language used in these decisions to state the working principle is not uniform and there are minor variations in the formulation according as one aspect is more emphasised than the other, the working principle laid down is basically the same. Gajendragadkar, J., (as he then was) speaking on behalf of the Court in the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha case stated the working principle in these terms:

“……as a working principle it may be stated that an activity systematically or habitually undertaken for the production or distribution of goods or for the rendering of material services to the community at large or a part of such community with the help of employees is an undertaking. Such an activity generally involves the cooperation of the employer and the employees; and its object is the satisfaction of material human needs. It must be organised or arranged in a manner in which trade or business is generally organised or arranged. It must not be casual nor must it be for oneself nor for pleasure. Thus the manner in which the activity in question is organised or arranged, the condition of the co-operation between employer and the employee necessary for its success and its object to render material service to the community can be regarded as some of the features which are distinctive of activities to which Section 2(j ) applies.” It was the same working principle which was pithily expressed by this Court through Hidayatullah J., (as he then was) in the Madras Gymkhana case where it was stated:”……before the work engaged in can be described as an industry, it must bear the definite character of ‘trade’ or ‘business’ or manufacture’ or ‘calling’ or must be capable of being described as an undertaking resulting in material goods or material services”. This last proposition taken from the judgment in the Madras Gymkhana case was in so many terms accepted as valid in the Safdarjung Hospital case:vide page 189 of the Report. This Court speaking through Hidayatullah C. J., pointed out in the Safdarjung Hospital case at pages 186 and 187 of the Report .

“But in the collocation of the terms and their definitions these terms have a definite economic content of a particular type and on the authorities of this Court have been uniformly accepted as excluding professions and are only concerned with the production, distribution and consumption of wealth and the production and availability of material services. Industry has thus been accepted to mean only trade and business, manufacture, or undertaking analogous to trade or business for the production of material goods or wealth and material services.”

What is meant by ‘material’ services in this context was explained by the learned Chief Justice in these words:

“Material services are not services which depend wholly or largely upon the contribution of professional knowledge, skill or dexterity for the production of a result. Such services being given individually and by individuals are services no doubt but not material services. Even an establishment where many such operate cannot be said to convert their professional services into material services. Material services involve an activity carried on through cooperation between employers and employees to provide the community with the use of something such as electric power, water, transportation, mail delivery, telephones and the like, In providing these services, there may be employment of trained men and even professional men, but the emphasis is not on what these men do but upon the productivity of a service organised as an industry and commercially valuable. Thus the services of professional men involving benefit to individuals according to their needs, such as doctors, teachers, lawyers, solicitors etc, are easily distinguishable from an activity such as transport service. The latter is of a commercial character in which something is brought into existence quite apart from the benefit to particular individuals. It is the production of this something which is described as the production of material services.”

The learned Chief Justice then proceeded to explain why professions must be held to be outside the ambit of industry. This is what he said:

“A profession ordinarily is an occupation requiring intellectual skill, often coupled with manual skill. Thus a teacher uses purely intellectual skill while a painter uses both. In any event, they are not engaged in an occupation in which employers and employees co-operate in the production or sale of commodities or arrangement for their production or sale or distribution and their services cannot be described as material services.” It was for this reason, observed the learned Chief Justice, that the establishment of a solicitor was held not to be an industry “because there the services rendered by employees were in aid of professional men and not productive of material goods or wealth or material services”, National Union of Commercial Employees v. M R Meher, (1962) Supp (3) SCR157 . The learned Chief Justice pointed out that in the University of Delhi v. Ramnath. (1964) 2 SCR 703 the University was also held to be outside the ambit of industry for the same reason. The learned Chief Justice then summarised the working principle-the broad test or criterion for determining what is an undertaking analogous to trade or business – in these terms:

“It, therefore, follows that before an industrial dispute can be raised between employers and their employees or between employers and employers or between employees and employees in relation to the employment or non-employment or the terms of employment or with the conditions of labour of any person, there must be first established a relationship of employers and employees associating together, the former following a trade, business, manufacture, undertaking or calling of employer in the production of material goods and material services and the latter following any calling service, employment, handicraft, or industrial occupation or avocation of workmen in aid of the employers’ enterprise. It is not necessary that there must be a profit motive but the enterprise must be analogous to trade or business in a commercial sense.”

and after referring to the observations of Isaacs and Rich. JJ., in Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees of Australia v. Melbourne Corporation, 26 CLR 508 (Aus) pointed out that these observations showed that “industrial disputes occur in operations in which employers and employees associate to provide what people want and desire, in other words, where there is production of material goods or material services.” (emphasis added).

It would thus be seen that the broad test for determining when an undertaking can be said to be analogous to trade or business laid down in the Safdarjung Hospital case (AIR 1970 SC 1407) was the same as in the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha case (AIR 1960 SC 610). The Safdarjung Hospital case did not make any real departure from the enunciation of this test. It is only in the application of this test to the case of hospitals that the Safdarjung Hospital case took a different view and observed that the judgment in the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha case had taken “an extreme view of the matter which was not justified”. There was also one other ground on which the decision in the Safdarjung Hospital case disapproved of the view taken in the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha case and that ground was that the decision in the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha case proceeded on an erroneous basis that an activity, in order to be an undertaking analogous to trade or business, need not be an economic activity and applied a wrong test, namely, ‘can such activity be carried on by private individuals or group of individuals?’ It would, therefore, seem that, in view of the decision in Safdarjung Hospital case, this last test applied in the Hospital Mazdoor Sabha case must be rejected as irrelevant and it must be held that an activity, in order to be recognised as an undertaking analogous to trade or business, must be an economic activity in the sense that it is productive of material goods or material services.

Raj Balam Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.[SC 2017 November]

keywords:- regularization of appointment- Temporary appointment

Capture

  1. One cannot dispute that the State has the power to appoint persons for a temporary period under the Act and Rules framed thereunder and once such power was exercised by the State, the status of such appointee continued to be that of temporary employee notwithstanding grant of some extensions to them for some more period.
  2. The grant of extension to work for some more period to the writ petitioners could never result in conferring on them the status of a permanent employee or/and nor could enable them to seek regularization in the services unless some Rule had recognized any such right in their favour

Act : under Rule 57-A of the Bihar Certificate Manual, the instructions issued under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act

DATE: November 27, 2017

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Raj Balam Prasad & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors.

[Civil Appeal No.19846 of 2017 arising out of SLP (C) No.31638 of 2016]

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appeal is filed against the final judgment and order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No.1760 of 2012 whereby the Division Bench of the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents herein by setting aside the order dated 2 08.05.2012 of the Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.4247 of 2012 which allowed the appellants’ writ petition and issued a writ of mandamus directing the State to regularize the services of the appellants on the post of “Muharrirs” .

3. The controversy involved in the appeal is confined to short facts, which, however, need mention hereinbelow to appreciate the same.

4. The short question, which arises for consideration in this appeal, is whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in dismissing the appellants’ writ petition by allowing the intra court appeal filed by the respondents herein and reversing the order of the Single Judge which had allowed the appellants’ writ petition by issuing a mandamus directing the State(respondents) to regularize the appellants on the post of “Muharrir”.

5. Eight (8) persons were appointed on the post of “Muharrir” in the Office of Collector, Saran Chpara (Bihar) in the year 1987-88 by the State (Collector). These eight persons included present four (4) appellants herein. The appointment of these eight persons was made as temporary appointment for a period of three months. These appointments were made by the authority concerned by taking recourse to the powers under Rule 57-A of the Bihar Certificate Manual, the instructions issued under the Bihar and Orissa Public Demand Recovery Act (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”).

6. These temporary appointments were made for disposal of several pending certificate cases, which could not be disposed of for want of adequate hands available in the office. However, the services of the eight persons were extended for sometime by issuing extension orders. It was up to the year 1991.

7. These eight Muharrirs filed a writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 5142 of 1991) in the High Court at Patna claiming therein a relief for their regularization in services as Muharrir. By order 4 dated 03.04.2001, the Single Judge disposed of the writ petition by granting liberty to the writ petitioners to submit their representation to the Competent Authority to enable them to examine their grievances on the question of regularization in service.

8. The writ petitioners (8) felt aggrieved and filed intra court appeal. The Division Bench dismissed the appeal (L.P.A. No.434 of 2001) by order dated 28.07.2007 but further made pertinent observations and, in consequence, also issued directions.

9. In the opinion of the Division Bench, when the services of the writ petitioners had come to an end on 03.06.1991 and 19.06.1991 and when these two orders were not stayed by the Writ Court (Single Judge) in the writ petition filed by the writ petitioners then how the writ petitioners could continue in services even as daily wagers thereafter and how some of the writ petitioners were able to get their services regularized from 10.10.2006. The Division Bench, therefore, while expressing their concern directed the State Vigilance Department to look into the matter and take appropriate steps in accordance with law.

10. As mentioned above, in the meantime, out of eight Muharrirs, the services of five Muharrirs including one more person by name Mr. Sugriev Singh were regularized by order dated 10.10.2006.

11. The writ petitioners, whose services could not be regularized, felt aggrieved and filed SLP in this Court. This Court dismissed the SLP and granted liberty to the petitioners to file representations to the concerned authority for ventilating of their grievance.

12. It is not in dispute that the Competent Authority, by order dated 15.01.2012, rejected the representation made by the appellants stating therein that since their services had already come to an end in 1991, no orders for their regularization could now be passed.

13. These persons then filed another round of writ petition (C.W.J.C. No.4247 of 2012) and claimed the same relief of regularization in the services by basing their case on one Circular dated 16.04.2008. The Single Judge allowed the writ petition by order 29.08.2011 and issued a mandamus against the State and the concerned department to regularize the services of the appellants on the post of Muharrirs.

14. The respondents herein (State and the concerned departments) felt aggrieved and filed intra Court appeal before the Division Bench. By impugned judgment, the Division Bench allowed the State’s appeal and dismissed the appellants’ writ petition. It is against this judgment, the writ petitioners have felt aggrieved and filed this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.

15. Heard Mr. Praneet Ranjan, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Manish Kumar, learned counsel for the respondents.

16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the record of the case, we find no merit in this appeal. In our opinion, the view taken by the Division Bench appears to be just, legal and proper and hence does not call for any interference.

17. This is what the Division Bench held for allowing the appeal and dismissing the appellants’ writ petition: “We have heard learned counsel for the parties and find that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is not sustainable in law. The order passed in LPA No.434 of 2001 dated 28th of July, 2008 was not brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. It is further contended that even if the order dated 10.10.2006 was not have set aside, the fact remains that such order of regularization could not have been passed since the services of the Muharrir have come to an end in 1991 itself. The permanent status could be conferred to those who were in service and not to those whose service had come to an end many years ago. Such an order could not be made basis of permanent status through the writ court. Such order dated 10.10.2006 is not enforceable in law. The representation having been declined in the light of the circular dated 16.04.2008, we do not find that the writ petitioners were entitled to any direction to treat them as regular employees.”

18. We agree with the reasoning of the Division Bench quoted supra.

19. In our opinion also, when the appointment of the appellants (writ petitioners) was made for a fixed period in exercise of the powers under Rule 57-A and the said appointment period having come to an end in the year 1991 after granting some extension, we fail to appreciate as to how the appellants could claim to remain in service after 1991.

20. One cannot dispute that the State has the power to appoint persons for a temporary period under the Act and Rules framed thereunder and once such power was exercised by the State, the status of such appointee continued to be that of temporary employee notwithstanding grant of some extensions to them for some more period.

21. In other words, the grant of extension to work for some more period to the writ petitioners could never result in conferring on them the status of a permanent employee or/and nor could enable them to seek regularization in the services unless some Rule had recognized any such right in their favour.

22. That apart, when the period fixed in the appointment orders expired in the year 1991 then there was no scope for the appellants to have claimed continuity in service for want of any extension order in that behalf.

23. We have perused the Circular dated 16.04.2008 (Annexure P-7) issued by the State. This Circular only says that if any temporary persons are appointed for a particular project and if they are found to be of some utility, their services can be regularized as per Rules.

24. As mentioned above, so far as the cases of these appellants are concerned, their representations were examined by the State but were rejected finding no merit therein. One of the reasons for rejection of the representation was that the services of the appellants had already come to an end in 1991 and, therefore, no orders to regularize their services could now be passed after such a long lapse of time.

25. As rightly observed by the Division Bench in the impugned judgment, the earlier order of the Division Bench in which a vigilance inquiry was ordered to find out as to how an order of regularization could be passed in favour of some Muharrirs was not brought to the notice of the Single Judge which led him to allow the appellants’ writ petition.

26. Learned counsel for the appellants, however, argued vehemently that the order of the Single Judge deserves to be restored by setting aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench as the same is based on proper reasoning but in the light of what we have held supra, we cannot accept his submission. In our opinion, the Division Bench was right in setting aside of the order of the Single Judge and we concur with the reasoning and the conclusion of the Division Bench. In addition, we have also given our reasoning in support thereof.

27. In the light of foregoing discussion, we find no merit in the appeal, which thus fails and is accordingly dismissed.

 [R.K. AGRAWAL]

 [ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE]

Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.[SC 2017 November]

Keywords: Guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi-

Capture

If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

NOVEMBER 15, 2017


SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Ors.

[Civil Appeal No(s). 18798/2017 arising from SLP (C) No. 20525/2011]

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. This is a case in which the appellant was terminated from service on account of suppression of his involvement in a criminal case. He was enlisted for appointment in CRPF on 24.08.1994. He submitted a verification form on 9.12.1994. Column No.12 belonged to involvement in any criminal case. That was left unfilled.

3. On subsequent verification it was found that an FIR had been registered against him on 28.10.1992 under Sections 323, 324 read with Section 34 IPC. He was acquitted by judgment dated 2.5.1994. But, an appeal at the instance of the respondent(s) was pending when the termination took place. The High Court has upheld the termination.

4. In Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, this Court has considered in detail as to the circumstances under which the stringent action could be taken and to what extent the employer can exercise its discretion. Relevant portion reads as follows:-

“38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted :

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2 Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

38.4.3 If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.

38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.

38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”

5. In view of the judgment in Avtar Singh (supra), operative portion of which we have extracted above, we direct the Appointing Authority to consider afresh the case of the appellant in the light of the law laid down by this Court and subsequent development pertaining to the order passed in appeal and pass appropriate orders thereon.

6. We make it clear that a speaking order will be passed.

7. In order to enable the Appointing Authority to pass orders, as above, we direct the appellant to file an appropriate representation before the Appointing Authority and the Appointing Authority will pass orders, in accordance with law, within four months from the date of receipt of a representation after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

8. The appeal is disposed of as above.

9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

10. There shall be no orders as to costs.

 [KURIAN JOSEPH]

 [R. BANUMATHI]

Vikram Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Police[SC 2017 November]

Keywords: Selection for appointment-

Capture

Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

Dates: November 15, 2017

Bench:   [KURIAN JOSEPH]  [R. BANUMATHI]


SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Vikram Singh Vs. The Commissioner of Police

[Civil Appeal No(S). 18800/2017 arising from SLP (C) No.24320/2014]

KURIAN, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellant is before this Court, aggrieved by the cancellation of candidature for selection for appointment as a constable under the respondent. It is on the ground that the appellant had suppressed some information regarding involvement in the criminal cases.

3. The law on the said issue has been laid down by this Court in Avtar Singh v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, which reads as follows:-

“38.1 Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.

38.2. While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information.

38.3. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.

38.4. In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted :

38.4.1. In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.

38.4.2 Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.

38.4.3 If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.

38.5. In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.

38.6. In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case.

38.7. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.

38.8. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.

38.9. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.

38.10. For determining suppression or false information attestation/verification form has to be specific, not vague. Only such information which was required to be specifically mentioned has to be disclosed. If information not asked for but is relevant comes to knowledge of the employer the same can be considered in an objective manner while addressing the question of fitness. However, in such cases action cannot be taken on basis of suppression or submitting false information as to a fact which was not even asked for.

38.11. Before a person is held guilty of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi, knowledge of the fact must be attributable to him.”

4. Though the learned counsel appearing for the appellant made strenuous submissions to contend for the position that the lapses, if any, are only to be condoned since everything occurred prior to the filing of the application and the appellant had already been acquitted also even before filing of the application. As rightly pointed by Ms. Kiran Suri, learned senior counsel, appearing for the respondent, if at all anything is to be done it can only be on consideration by the respondent of all the relevant aspects, in the light of the judgment referred to above.

5. Accordingly, this appeal is disposed of as follows:- The appellant is permitted to file a detailed representation before the respondent, within a period of one month from today. In the event of filing of such a representation, the respondent will consider the same in the light of the judgment referred to above and pass a reasoned order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant, within a period of four months thereafter. We make it clear that the judgment of the High Court shall not stand in the way of the respondent/Commissioner of Police passing orders, as above.

6. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

7. There shall be no orders as to costs.

West Bengal Service Rules

Chapter 1 – Extent of Application

  1. Short Title and Commencement
  2. To whom the rules apply
  3. Interpretations
    3A. Relaxations
    3B. Abstaining from work
    3C. Restoring to Strike
    3D. Directions of Government
  4. Repeal and Savings

Chapter 2 – Definitions
5. Definitions
6. Rate of Exchange

Chapter 3 – General Conditions of Service

  1. Age on first appointment
  2. Condonation of an excess in age on first appointment
  3. Declaration of age
    10-14.Appointment on medical certificate of fitness
  4. Whole time at the disposal of Government
  5. Limitations in making substantive appointment
    17-24.Lien
  6. Subscription to Provident Fund and other similar funds
  7. Drawal of pay-date of its commencement and end
  8. Omitted
  9. Charge of office
  10. Headquarters term defined
    29A. Obligation to stay at headquarters
    30-33. Journey beyond the limits of charge
  11. Maximum period of continuous absence from duty
    34A. Resignation
    34B. Discharge after notice

Chapter 4 – Domicile

35-37. Omitted

Chapter 5 – Pay

  1. Omitted
  2. During a course of instruction or training
  3. Of a student to be appointed to Government Service on passing through a course of training
  4. Time scale of pay
  5. On substantive appointment
    42A. Pay fixation on promotion or appointment
    42B. Benefit of next higher scale of pay in certain contingency
  6. On substantive appointment on reduced scale of pay
  7. When the pay of a post is changed
  8. Withholding of increments
    46-47. Efficiency bar
    48-48A. Conditions for counting service for increments
  9. Premature increment
    49A. Stagnation pay
  10. Counting of military service towards increments
  11. Pay of police officer on re-enlistment on discharge or resignation
  12. Reduction to lower stage in a time scale
  13. Reduction to a lower grade or post
    54-55. Pay on officiating appointment
    55A. Pay on erroneous appointment
    55B. Pay on re-employment after retirement
  14. Pay of a temporary post
  15. Pay of post carrying a pay personal to another Government employee
  16. Officiating pay at reduced rates
  17. Authorities empowered to sanction officiating appointment
  18. Absorption of personal pay in subsequent increases of pay
  19. Omitted

Chapter 6 – Fees & Remunerations

  1. Circumstances in which granted
  2. Conditions of acceptance
  3. Sanctioning authorities

Chapter 7 – Combination of Appointments
65. Pay how regulated

Chapter 8 – Deputation out of India

65A. To whom the rules apply
66. Sanctioning authority
67. Date of beginning and end
68. Pay during deputation
69. Omitted

Chapter 9 – Dismissal, Removal & Suspension

  1. Termination of service on removal or dismissal
  2. Subsistence grant while under suspension
  3. Pay and allowances on reinstatement
    72A. Pay and allowances on reinstatement when the orders of dismissal, etc., are set aside by a court of law
    72B. Pay and allowances on reinstatement by competent authority
  4. Omitted
  5. Leave during period of suspension or while in prison
    74A. Work charged staff

Chapter 10 – Compulsory Retirement

  1. For Group A, Group B and Group C service
  2. For Group D service
  3. Omitted
  4. For Government employee holding officiating appointment s
  5. Calculation of the date of retirement
    79A. Re-employment of Government employees

Chapter 11 – Joining Time

  1. Conditions of its grant
  2. Period admissible
  3. When transfer is not in a new station or does not involve a change of residence
    83-84. Omitted
  4. Route for calculation
  5. Making over charge away from head quarter
  6. While in transit from one post to another
  7. When leave intervenes
  8. On return from leave
  9. On transfer during a vacation
  10. Extension of joining time
  11. When transferred to the control of another Government.
  12. Pay or leave salary of Government employees holding substantive appointment.
  13. Penalty for exceeding joining time
  14. Pay or leave salary of Government employees having no substantive appointment
  15. Non-Government employees on temporary appointment under Government

Chapter 12 – Foreign Service

97-101. Conditions of transfer
102-108. Leave and pension contributions
109-110. Leave in foreign service
111. On officiating appointment in a post under Government
112-114. Reversion from foreign service
115. Traveling allowance
116. When an addition is made to permanent staff

Chapter 13 – Service under Local Funds

  1. Funds administered by Government
  2. Funds not administered by Government

Chapter 14 – Passage from or to India
119, 120, 122. Free Passage – Rules for the grant of
121, 123-143. Omitted

Chapter 15 – Leave

Section – I – General Conditions

  1. Extent of application
  2. Government employees on foreign service or in deputation
  3. When transferred from a service or post to which these rules do not apply
  4. Counting of former service on re-employment
  5. Omitted
  6. Persons re-employed after retirement
  7. Grant of special disability leave
    151-152. Leave sanctioning authority
  8. Cannot be claimed as of right
  9. Date of beginning and end
    155-157. Combination of holidays with leave and joining time
  10. Recall from leave
  11. Certificate of fitness to return to duty
    160(1). Return from leave before due date
    160(2). Absence after expiry of leave
  12. Short extensions in cases of overstayals
  13. Employment during leave

Section – II – Leave Rules

163-164. Extent of application
165. Leave and leave procedure
166. Definitions
167. Combination of different kinds of leave
168. Leave preparatory to retirement
168A. Leave beyond the date of retirement of quitting service
168B. Cash equivalent of leave salary in case of death in service
168C. Cash equivalent of leave salary in case of retirement on invalidation from service
169. Earned leave for Government employees serving in a department other than a vacation department
170. Calculation of earned leave
171-172. Earned leave for persons serving in vacation department
173. Half pay leave and commuted leave
174. Leave not due
175. Extra ordinary leave
176. Leave salary

Section – III – Ordinary Leave Rules

177-194. Omitted

Section – IV – Special kind of Leave

195-196. Special disability leave
197. Study leave
198. Quarantine leave
199. Maternity leave
200-204. Hospital leave
205. Special sick leave
206. Leave to Survey parties
207. Casual Leave

Section – V – Special Provisions

  1. Administrator General and Official Trustees
  2. Military Officers in civil employ
  3. On deputation out of India
  4. Government employees whose duties are not continuous
  5. Piece-workers in Government Press
  6. On contract appointment
    214-216. Law officers
  7. Part time Government employees
  8. Government employees remunerated by fees
  9. During a period of probation or apprenticeship
  10. Government employees paid from contingencies

Section – VI – Leave Procedure

  1. Leave Procedure

Chapter 16 – Occupation of Government Residences
Appendix 1 Heads of Department
Appendix 2 Members of clerical staff
Appendix 3 Omitted
Appendix 4 Omitted
Appendix 5 Rules for the grant of additional leave to Government employees for the study of Scientific, Technical or similar problems or in order to undertake special courses of instructions
Appendix 6 West Bengal Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1959
Appendix 6A West Bengal Services (Duties, Rights and Obligations of the Govt. Employee)
Appendix 7 Rules prescribing Leave Procedure
Appendix 8 Concordance showing the source of each rule in the West Bengal Service Rule Part – I
Appendix 9 Omitted
Appendix 10 Casual Leave Rules
Appendix 11 Special Casual Leave Rules

Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (earlier known as U.P.S.R.T.C.) & Ors. Vs. Sukhveer Singh [SC 2017]

SERVICE-INQUIRY REPORT

  • KEYWORDS: award of the labour court

SC

  • We are in agreement with the findings of the inquiry officer which were accepted by the disciplinary authority and approved by the appellate authority and the labour court that the Respondent had committed the misconduct in collusion with the conductor. It is no more res integra that acts of corruption/misappropriation cannot be condoned, even in cases where the amount involved is meagre.

DATE: November 10, 2017

ACTS:

BENCH:  [ARUN MISHRA] [L. NAGESWARA RAO]


SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Uttarakhand Transport Corporation (earlier known as U.P.S.R.T.C.) & Ors. Vs. Sukhveer Singh

[Civil Appeal No. 18448 of 2017 Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4012 of 2017]

L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.

Leave granted.

1. This Appeal is filed by the employer against the judgment of the High Court by which the order of dismissal of the Respondent- driver from service was set aside by the High Court.

2. The Respondent was appointed as a driver with the Appellants – Road Transport Corporation in the year 1989. On 27th October, 1995 while driving a vehicle on Karnal-Haridwar route, the Respondent did not stop the vehicle when the inspection team signalled. The inspection team had to follow the vehicle which was stopped six kilometres away from where it was signalled to stop. On verification, it was found that 61 passengers were travelling without a ticket. The Respondent was placed under suspension on 31st October, 1995 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuance of a charge sheet on 3rd November, 1995.

The Respondent submitted his explanation after which an inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Regional Manager, Haridwar. After considering the material on record, the inquiry officer found that the charges against the Respondent were proved. The inquiry officer relied upon the admission of the Respondent that though there was a signal by the inspecting team to stop the vehicle at Bidouli, he stopped the vehicle only after driving for two kilometres. The explanation given by the Respondent that he drove the vehicle due to a call given by the conductor was not accepted by the inquiry officer.

It was held that the Respondent was duty bound to stop the vehicle when a signal was given by the inspecting team. The inquiry officer further held that the Respondent colluded with the conductor and did not stop the vehicle as there were a number of ticketless passengers in the bus. The disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice on 26th December, 1996 along with which the inquiry report was supplied to the Respondent. Not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the Respondent to the show cause notice, the disciplinary authority dismissed him from service by an order dated 23rd April, 1997. The appellate authority dismissed the appeal filed by the Respondent on 25th July, 2000.

3. A reference was made to the labour court which was answered in favour of the Respondent on 15th November, 2007. The writ petition filed by the Respondent challenging the award of the labour court was allowed by the High Court and the labour court was directed to reconsider the matter. After remand, the labour court by an award dated 12th September, 2011 upheld the order of dismissal of the Respondent from service.

The Respondent challenged the award of the labour court by filing a writ petition in the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital. The High Court while relying upon a judgment of this Court in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors.1 allowed the writ petition and set aside the dismissal order. The High Court directed that the Respondent should be deemed to be in service with all consequential benefits. Assailing the legality of the said judgment of the High Court, the Appellants have approached this Court.

4. It is contended on behalf of the Appellants that the impugned judgment is contrary to the law laid down in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. (supra). It is further submitted that a copy of the inquiry report was in fact supplied to the Respondent. The other point that was canvassed by the Appellants is that the Respondent neither pleaded nor proved that any prejudice was caused to him by the non-supply of the inquiry report prior to the issuance of show cause notice.

The counsel for the Respondent supported the judgment of the High Court by submitting that it was incumbent upon the disciplinary authority to supply the inquiry report prior to the issuance of the show cause notice as per the judgment of this Court in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. (supra). He also relied upon certain findings in the inquiry report which were in favour of the Respondent. He finally submitted that the punishment of dismissal from service is disproportionate to the delinquency.

5. The award of the labour court was set aside by the High Court on the sole ground that non-supply of the inquiry report prior to the show cause notice vitiated the disciplinary proceedings. The High Court, in our opinion, committed an error in its interpretation of the judgment in Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. (supra). It is no doubt true that this Court in the said judgment held that a delinquent employee has a right to receive the report of the inquiry officer before the disciplinary authority takes a decision regarding his guilt or innocence. Denial of a reasonable opportunity to the employee by not furnishing the inquiry report before such decision on the charges was found to be in violation of principles of natural justice.

In the instant case, the disciplinary authority communicated the report of the inquiry officer to the Respondent along with the show cause notice. There is no dispute that the Respondent submitted his reply to the show cause notice after receiving the report of the inquiry officer. On considering the explanation submitted by the Respondent, the disciplinary authority passed an order of dismissal.

Though, it was necessary for the Appellants to have supplied the report of the inquiry officer before issuance of the show cause notice proposing penalty, we find no reason to hold that the Respondent was prejudiced by supply of the inquiry officer’s report along with the show cause notice. This is not a case where the delinquent was handicapped due to the inquiry officer’s report not being furnished to him at all. In Managing Director ECIL Hyderabad & Ors. v. B. Karunakar & Ors. (supra) this Court, while considering the effect on the order of punishment when the report of the inquiry officer was not furnished to the employee and the relief to which the delinquent employee is entitled, held as under:

[v] ……..When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non-furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions.

Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to an “unnatural expansion of natural justice” which in itself is antithetical to justice.

6. The question of the relief to be granted in cases where the report of the inquiry officer was not supplied to the delinquent employee came up for consideration of this Court in Haryana Financial Corpn. v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja2 in which it was held as follows:

21. From the ratio laid down in B. Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727] it is explicitly clear that the doctrine of natural justice requires supply of a copy of the inquiry officer’s report to the delinquent if such inquiry officer is other than the disciplinary authority. It is also clear that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer is in the breach of natural justice. But it is equally clear that failure to supply a report of the inquiry officer to the delinquent employee would not ipso facto result in the proceedings being declared null and void and the order of punishment non est and ineffective. It is for the delinquent employee to plead and prove that non-supply of such report had caused prejudice and resulted in miscarriage of justice. If he is unable to satisfy the court on that point, the order of punishment cannot automatically be set aside. After a detailed examination of the law on the subject, this Court concluded as follows:

44. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that though supply of report of the inquiry officer is part and parcel of natural justice and must be furnished to the delinquent employee, failure to do so would not automatically result in quashing or setting aside of the order or the order being declared null and void. For that, the delinquent employee has to show “prejudice”. Unless he is able to show that non-supply of report of the inquiry officer has resulted in prejudice or miscarriage of justice, an order of punishment cannot be held to be vitiated. And whether prejudice had been caused to the delinquent employee depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down.

7. It is clear from the above that mere non-supply of the inquiry report does not automatically warrant re-instatement of the delinquent employee. It is incumbent upon on the delinquent employee to plead and prove that he suffered a serious prejudice due to the non-supply of the inquiry report. We have examined the writ petition filed by the Respondent and we find no 9 pleading regarding any prejudice caused to the Respondent by the non-supply of the inquiry report prior to the issuance of the show cause notice. The Respondent had ample opportunity to submit his version after perusing the report of the inquiry officer.

The Respondent utilised the opportunity of placing his response to the inquiry report before the disciplinary authority. The High Court committed an error in allowing the writ petition filed by the Respondent without examining whether any prejudice was caused to the delinquent employee by the supply of the inquiry officer’s report along with the show cause notice. We are satisfied that there was no prejudice caused to the respondent by the supply of the report of the inquiry officer along with the show cause notice. Hence, no useful purpose will be served by a remand to the court below to examine the point of prejudice.

8. The Respondent contended that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the delinquency. It is submitted that he was working as a driver and the irregularity in issuance of tickets was committed by the conductor. We are in agreement with the findings of the inquiry officer which were accepted by the disciplinary authority and approved by the appellate authority and the labour court that the Respondent had committed the misconduct in collusion with the conductor. It is no more res integra that acts of corruption/misappropriation cannot be condoned, even in cases where the amount involved is meagre. (See – U.P.SRTC v. Suresh Chand Sharma).

9. For the aforementioned reasons, we allow the appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court. No order as to costs.

Public Utility services under Industrial Dispute Act 1947

Updated: 11/08/2018

Every case of employment is not necessarily productive of an industry. Domestic employment, administrative services of public officials, service in aid of occupations of professional men, also discloses relationship of employers and employees but they cannot be regarded as in the course of industry.

INDUSTRIES WHICH MAY BE DECLARED TO BE PUBLIC UTILITY SERVICES UNDER SUB-CLAUSE (vi) OF CLAUSE (n) OF SECTION 2

  1. Transport (other than railways) for the carriage of passengers or goods, by land or water]
  2. Banking.
  3. Cement.
  4. Coal.
  5. Cotton textiles.
  6. Foodstuffs.
  7. Iron and Steel.
  8. Defence establishments.
  9. Service in hospitals and dispensaries.
  10. Fire Brigade Service. Continue reading

Civil Services at the Union and State levels

Law Library

The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions

The Ministry of Personnel, Public Grievances and Pensions is the coordinating agency of the Central Government in personnel matters specially issues concerning recruitment, training, career development, staff welfare as well as the post retirement dispensation. The Ministry is also concerned with the process of responsive people-oriented modern administration.

Department of Personnel and Training

The role of the Department of Personnel & Training can be conceptually divided into two parts, In its large nodal role, it acts as the formulator of policy and the watch-dog of the Government ensuring that certain accepted standards and norms, as laid down by it, are followed by all Ministries/Departments, in the recruitment, regulation of service conditions, posting/transfers, deputation of personnel as well as other related issues. Towards this end, guidelines are issued by it for the benefit of all Ministries/Departments and it monitors the implementation of these guidelines.

The two organizations through which the Department ensures recruitment of personnel for the Government are the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC)and the Staff Selection Commission (SSC).

Training Division is responsible for coordinating the implementation of National Training Policy which was adopted in April 1996.Two major training institutions directly under the administrative control of the Department are the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration (LBSNAA), Mussorie and the Institute of Secretariat Training and Management (ISTM), JNU Campus, New Delhi. The former is mainly responsible for providing induction training to recruits to the Indian Administrative Service and other All India Services and Central Services.

Devider

The various Civil Services at the Union and State levels can be classified in several different ways. Firstly, the Civil Services can be categorized into three broad groups –
Central Civil Services, All India Services and the State Civil Services. The Central Services function under the Union Government and are generally engaged in administering subjects which are assigned to the Union under the Constitution, whereas the All India Services are common to the Union and the States and the State Services function only under the State Governments. Secondly, the Union and State Services can be classified into Group A, B and C categories based on their role and responsibilities. Thirdly, these services can also be classified into technical and non-technical services.

Central Services and State Services can be sub-divided into Group A, B and C according to the rank and responsibilities of its officials. Th is classification is hierarchal with the Group A Services generally carrying higher ranks and responsibilities. Though each of these groups has a different channel for recruitment, there is provision for promotion from Group C to Group B and from Group B to Group A

Central Services can be further categorized as (I) Non-Technical Services, (II) Technical Services (which include engineering services), (III) Health Services and (IV) Other Services (which includes some engineering and scientific services) and (V) Central Secretariat Services.

The Constitution, in Article. 312, originally mentioned only two Services as belonging to the category of All-India Services, namely, the Indian Administrative Service and the Indian Police Service. Subsequently, the Indian Forest Service was also constituted as an All India Service. The Constitution (Forty-second Amendment) Act, 1976 made provisions for constituting an all India Judicial Service, which has not yet been formed.

Devider

A List of All the Organized Group ‘A’ Central Civil Services in Government of India

1. Indian Audit & Accounts Service under Office of the Comptroller & Auditor General of India
2. Indian Trade Service under Ministry of Commerce and Industry
3. Indian P&T Accounts and Finance Service under Ministry of Communications and Information Technology

4. Indian Postal Service -do-
5. Indian Defence Accounts Service under Ministry of Defence
6. Indian Defence Estates Service -do-
7. Indian Foreign Service  under Ministry of External Affairs
8. Indian Civil Accounts Service under  Ministry of Finance
9. Indian Customs & Central Excise Service -do-
10. Indian Revenue Service -do-
11. Indian Information Service under Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
12. Indian Railway Accounts Service  under Ministry of Railways
13. Indian Railway Personnel Service -do-
14. Indian Railway Traffic Service -do-
15. Railway Protection Force -do-
16. Indian Company Law Service under Ministry of Corporate Affairs
17. Defence Aeronautical Quality service  under Ministry of Defence Assurance Service
18. Defense Quality Assurance Service -do-
19. Defense Research and Development Service -do-
20. Indian Cost Accounts Service under Ministry of Finance
21. Indian Economics Service -do-
22. Border Security Force  under Ministry of Home Affairs
23. Central Industrial Security Force -do-
24. Central Reserve Police Force -do-
25. Indo Tibetan Boarder Police -do-
26. Indian Broadcasting (Programme) Service under Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
27. Central Labour Service under Ministry of Labour
28. Indian Legal Service under Ministry of Law & Justice
29. Geological Stream (Various streams)  under Ministry of Mines (Geological Survey of India)
30. Indian Meteorological Service under  Ministry of Science & Technology
31. Survey of India Group ‘A’ Service -do-
32. Indian Statistical Service under Ministry of Statistics & Programme Implementiaton

33. Indian Ordnance Factories Health Service (CDMO Cadre) Ministry of Defence
34. Central Health Service Ministry of Health & Family Welfare
35. Border Security Force Health Service Ministry of Home Aff airs
36. Central Reserve Police Health Service -do-
37. ITBP Health Service -do-
38. Indian Railway Medical Service Ministry of Railways
39. Indian Inspection Service  under Ministry of Commerce & Industry (Supply Division)
40 Indian Supply Service -do-
41. Indian Telecommunication Service Ministry of Communications and Information
Technology
42. P&T Building Works Service (Architectural, Electrical & Civil Wing)    -do-
43. Border Roads Engg. Service (E&M Cadre) Ministry of Defence
44. Indian Naval Armament Service -do-
45. Indian Ordnance Factories Service -do-
46. Indian Defence Service of Engineers -do-
47. Central Power Engineering Service undere Ministry of Power
48. Indian Broadcasting Service (Engg.) Ministry of Information & Broadcasting
49 Indian Railway Service of Elec. Engg. Ministry of Railways
50 Indian Railway Service of Engineers -do-
51. Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers -do-
52. Indian Railway Service of Signal & Telecommunication Engineers -do-
53. Indian Railway Stores Service -do-
54. Central Engg. Service (Roads) Ministry of Road Transport & Highways
55. Central Architects Service under Ministry of Urban Development & Poverty (CPWD) Alleviation
56. Central Elect. & Mech. Engineering Service (CPWD) -do-
57. Central Engg. Service (CPWD) -do-

58. Central Water Engineering Service under Ministry of Water Resources

Devider

Acts & Rules

SL. No. Title Details
1 Manual of Office Procedure Link
2 Record Retention Schedule as Prescribed by D/o Administrative Reforms and Public Grievances Link
3 General Financial Rules, 2005 Link
4 All India Services (AIS) Manuals Link
5 The AIS (Performance Appraisal Report) Rules, 2007 Link
6 Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 Link
7 Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 Link
8 Central Civil Services (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988 Link
9 Central Civil Services (Leave Travel Concession) Rules, 1988 (Notification dated 03/05/1988) Download (395.38 KB) 
10 Central Civil Services (Leave Rules) Download (132.22 KB) 
11 Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 – Bringing Out A Revised/Updated Edition Link
12 Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964 (Updated) Download (678.77 KB) 
13 Central Civil Services (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 1990 Download (1.16 MB) 
14 Central Civil Services (Redeployment of Surplus Staff) Rules, 2002 Download (94.25 KB) 
15 IAS Promotion Guide Lines Download (93.53 KB) 
16 IPS (Appointment by Limited Competetive Examination) Regulations, 2011 Download (532.72 KB) 
17 IPS (Probation) Amendment Rules, 2011 Download (269.7 KB) 
18 IAS (Pay) 2nd Amendment Rules, 2008 Download (907.29 KB) 
19 IFS (Pay) 2nd Amendment Rules, 2008 Download (940.46 KB) 
20 IPS (Pay) Amendment Rules, 2008 Download (946.7 KB) 
21 The IAS (PAY) Rules, 2007 Download (1015.01 KB) 
22 The IFS (PAY) Rules, 2007 Download (264.58 KB) 
23 The IPS (PAY) Rules, 2007 Download (291.68 KB) 
24 Central Secretariat Service Rules, 1962 Link
25 Central Secretariat Service Rules, 2009 Download (1.15 MB) 
26 Central Secretariat Clerical Service Rules Link
27 CSSS Rules, 1969 Download (519.41 KB) 
28 CSSS (PPS Grade) Rules, 1989 Link
29 CSSS (Senior PPS Grade) Rules, 2000 Link
30 Brochure On Grant Of Casual Leave & Special Casual Leave Link
31 Brochure On Casual Labourers Link
32 Brochure On Post Retirement Commercial Employment Download (906.39 KB) 
33 Revised Scheme for Redeployment of Surplus Staff , 1989 Download (83.1 KB)
34 All India Services Indemnity ACT Link
35 Administrative Tribunals Link
36 The Public Servants Inquiries ACT
37 The Departmental Inquiries (Enforcement of Attendance of witnesses and Production of Documents) ACT Link
38 Bihar Reorganisation Act, 2000 Link
39 Madhya Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 Link
40 Uttar Pradesh Reorganisation Act, 2000 Link
41 Draft Public Services Bill – 2007 Download (59.92 KB) 
42 The Public Interest Disclosure and Protection to Persons Making the Disclosure Bill, 2010 Download (600.94 KB) 
43 CVC Act 2003 Link
44 CVC Act Amendment Link
45 Gazette Notification(CVC) Link
46 PC (Prevention Of Corruption) ACT, 1988 Link
47 The Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 Link
48 The Delhi Special Police Establishment (Amendment) Act, 2014 No. 28 of 2014
49 The Central Vigilance Commission (Staff) Rules, 2007 Download (131.99 KB) 
50 The Whistle Blowers Protection Act 2014 Link
51 RTI ACT, 2005 Link
52 RTI Rules, 2012 Download (131.55 KB) 
53 Compendium of Welfare Programmes Instruction Download (4.24 MB) 
54 Administrative Instructions on Departmental Canteens in Government Officers Download (7.24 MB) 
55 Fundamental Rules (FR 11 and FR 52,53 and 54) Download (23.89 KB) 
Download (1.2 MB) 
56 Extracts of provisions in F.R. 56 Download (222.17 KB) 
57 Compilation of Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules (Part-I) Link
58 Brochure on JCM & CA Download (4.21 MB) 
59 CCS (RSA) Rules, 1993 Download (187.57 KB) 

Devider

OMs and Orders

  1. Related To Vacancy
  2. Establishment Officer
  3. Administrative Tribunal
  4. Administrative
  5. RTI
  6. State Reorganisation
  7. Central Service
    1. CSS
    2. CSSS
    3. CSCS
  8. Welfare
  9. Canteen
  10. Sports
  11. Estt (Reservation)
  12. Establishment
  13. Service
  14. Vigilance
  15. Cadre Review Division
  16. Training Division

    Devider

    ©Advocatetanmoy Law Library